Favorite Bruin of All-Time Tournament - Rd. 2, Orr/Rask/Bucyk/Bergy Divisions - CLOSED

[Rubber Biscuit]

This is absolutely correct. In the grand scheme of things, Park was by far the better player. Hard to see guys like Park and Taz loose out to lesser players because of so many bandwagon fans that came on board after the cup win in 11, and they have zero frame of reference for this team's history.

This is silly. You can have a deep appreciation for the team's history and still like Lucic better than Park for whatever reason. You can see as much in looking at who voted for Lucic. I know you know this. No one's saying Lucic was better than Park.

And Taz? I wouldn't call Milt Schmidt a lesser player

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is absolutely correct. In the grand scheme of things, Park was by far the better player. Hard to see guys like Park and Taz loose out to lesser players because of so many bandwagon fans that came on board after the cup win in 11, and they have zero frame of reference for this team's history.

So why would you vote for Pete Peters over John Bucyk?

 

[sarge88]

This is silly. You can have a deep appreciation for the team's history and still like Lucic better than Park for whatever reason. You can see as much in looking at who voted for Lucic. I know you know this. No one's saying Lucic was better than Park.

And Taz? I wouldn't call Milt Schmidt a lesser player

20 years from now in an exercise like this people who saw them all play their entire careers are going to need to choose between Chara, Bergeron, Pasta, Rask and Marchand....and nobody will be wrong because it’s a favorite player poll...not best player poll.

 

[LSCII]

This is silly. You can have a deep appreciation for the team's history and still like Lucic better than Park for whatever reason. You can see as much in looking at who voted for Lucic. I know you know this. No one's saying Lucic was better than Park.

And Taz? I wouldn't call Milt Schmidt a lesser player

Why is it silly? Because I disagree with the results? I thought this was a board to discuss and debate the team? I knew when I posted earlier about Park vs Lucic what the outcome was going to be. I don't agree because I think there have been many players of similar skill set and ilk as Lucic, but very few guys on the team similar to Park. In fact, the only two that are in the same discussion as Park ability wise are Orr and Bourque. So yeah, it stinks to see Park relegated to out because most of the voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

The vast majority of posters who voted for Milt only saw him as the old guy the team rolled out at special events. Terry O'Reilly was the literal heart and soul of this team as a player for so long that it sucks to see him out as well. I get that Milt was a long time player, but I just don't view him in the same league as Taz. If you went into a lab and decided to build the perfect Bruin, you'd end up with Terry O'Reilly.

 

[LSCII]

So why would you vote for Pete Peters over John Bucyk?

Because I met Bucyk and he was a dick to me?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Because I met Bucyk and he was a dick to me?

OK.

 

[Rubber Biscuit]

Why is it silly? Because I disagree with the results? I thought this was a board to discuss and debate the team? I knew when I posted earlier about Park vs Lucic what the outcome was going to be. I don't agree because I think there have been many players of similar skill set and ilk as Lucic, but very few guys on the team similar to Park. In fact, the only two that are in the same discussion as Park ability wise are Orr and Bourque. So yeah, it stinks to see Park relegated to out because most of the voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

The vast majority of posters who voted for Milt only saw him as the old guy the team rolled out at special events. Terry O'Reilly was the literal heart and soul of this team as a player for so long that it sucks to see him out as well. I get that Milt was a long time player, but I just don't view him in the same league as Taz. If you went into a lab and decided to build the perfect Bruin, you'd end up with Terry O'Reilly.

What I thought was silly was the suggestion that people voting for Lucic over Park were bandwagon fans that came on board after the cup win in 11 that have zero frame of reference for this team's history. That's all.

I've got no problem with your take on Park over Lucic.

 

[LSCII]

What I thought was silly was the suggestion that people voting for Lucic over Park were bandwagon fans that came on board after the cup win in 11 that have zero frame of reference for this team's history. That's all.

I've got no problem with your take on Park over Lucic.

Do I think all the recent players will fair better in this poll because the board skews younger (in terms of fandom) due to the team's recent successful run? Absolutely. I get it but I hate it at the same time if that makes sense.

I also think that if you took Lucic and put him back in the days with O'Reilly, he'd probably be decent. But I think if you took O'Reilly or Neely and put them in today, they'd be far more impactful than Looch has been because of the freedom to move around the front of the net without getting mauled by a dman, like during their eras. I think the transition to today's less physical style of play would open things up for the power forwards of years gone by rather than vice versa.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Brad Park was 100 times better than Lucic

Of course he was, everyone knows that. This is a popularity contest tho and Bruins fans love tough players. Add in that a lot of fans here never saw Park play and it's not surprising at all that Lucic would beat him in a popularity contest.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Why is it silly? Because I disagree with the results? I thought this was a board to discuss and debate the team? I knew when I posted earlier about Park vs Lucic what the outcome was going to be. I don't agree because I think there have been many players of similar skill set and ilk as Lucic, but very few guys on the team similar to Park. In fact, the only two that are in the same discussion as Park ability wise are Orr and Bourque. So yeah, it stinks to see Park relegated to out because most of the voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

The vast majority of posters who voted for Milt only saw him as the old guy the team rolled out at special events. Terry O'Reilly was the literal heart and soul of this team as a player for so long that it sucks to see him out as well. I get that Milt was a long time player, but I just don't view him in the same league as Taz. If you went into a lab and decided to build the perfect Bruin, you'd end up with Terry O'Reilly.

So it's not ok for people who never saw Park play to vote for Looch but you expect people to vote for Taz because they never saw Milt play. Real sound logic there.

It's silly because you're insulting people for voting for someone in a popularity contest.

 

[LSCII]

So it's not ok for people who never saw Park play to vote for Looch but you expect people to vote for Taz because they never saw Milt play. Real sound logic there.

It's silly because you're insulting people for voting for someone in a popularity contest.

Insulting people? Why is that? I didn't call out anyone specifically. I just said that it sucks that a lot of the older guys are getting criminally underrated because the fan base has attracted a lot of new fans the last decade. But even so, isn't the goal of a poll like this to spur on discussion and debate? And again, I fail to see who I offended anyone with what I said.

In terms of Taz vs Milt, even fans who have never seen O'Reilly play know what his style of play was. He was a heart and soul type and he played with incredible passion and heat. He left it out on the ice every time. Can anyone here give me a run down on what Milt brought to the table? So while I didn't do a good job of explaining my point on Milt, I think it's accurate. Milt was best known for playing here and then moving up the ranks to eventually be the GM. He was with the organization a long time, but that's just longevity vs being the prototypical Bruin, like Taz was.

 

[McGarnagle]

Milt Schmidt was associated with the franchise for 9 decades, won two cups as a player, assembled another two cup winning teams as GM. He also gave up his athletic prime, his age 23-age 26 seasons to go to war. Taking away nothing from Terry O'Reilly and his style of play, calling Milt Schmidt a lesser player is unfair.

I do think it's an impossible ask to compare players across eras given differences in talent pools, equipment, and training though. Which is why I kind of feel this exercise would be better suited by putting them in bracket quadrants based on the eras they played in. If you drop 2007-2014 Lucic into the expansion era and have him take shots on Kansas City Scouts and Cleveland Barons stand-up goalies in fiberglass masks, that motherf***er's probably scoring 60 goals a year. but he also had the benefit of advanced training methods and nutrition, not to mention equipment. So in the end all you can fall back on is the personal connection and the stories you have. Legit, before this started, I had never even heard of Flash Hollet, but apparently he's a 4 seed based on point shares. Yet no one knows anything about him so Craig Janney is destroying him because we have a much stronger emotional connection to him and the teams he played on.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Insulting people? Why is that? I didn't call out anyone specifically. I just said that it sucks that a lot of the older guys are getting criminally underrated because the fan base has attracted a lot of new fans the last decade. But even so, isn't the goal of a poll like this to spur on discussion and debate? And again, I fail to see who I offended anyone with what I said.

In terms of Taz vs Milt, even fans who have never seen O'Reilly play know what his style of play was. He was a heart and soul type and he played with incredible passion and heat. He left it out on the ice every time. Can anyone here give me a run down on what Milt brought to the table? So while I didn't do a good job of explaining my point on Milt, I think it's accurate. Milt was best known for playing here and then moving up the ranks to eventually be the GM. He was with the organization a long time, but that's just longevity vs being the prototypical Bruin, like Taz was.

Calling people bandwagon fans for voting for Lucic ciuld definitely been seen as insulting. There's only been 23 people vote for him and I'd imagine most were Bruins fans before 2011. I know for a fact that several of them were.

I've read about Milt since I was a child so I know plenty about him. He was at times both the best offensive and defensive player in the league. He was also gritty, tough and a hell of a leader. A better version of Bergeron basically.

Besides that, please explain how you not voting for Milt because you never saw him play is any different than people not voting for Park because they never saw him play. You say people don't respect the Bruins history or however you worded it but you're doing the same towards Milt. It could also be said that Lucic was the prototypical Bruin. Personally, I love all four of the guys being discussed.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Milt Schmidt was associated with the franchise for 9 decades, won two cups as a player, assembled another two cup winning teams as GM. He also gave up his athletic prime, his age 23-age 26 seasons to go to war. Taking away nothing from Terry O'Reilly and his style of play, calling Milt Schmidt a lesser player is unfair.

I do think it's an impossible ask to compare players across eras given differences in talent pools, equipment, and training though. Which is why I kind of feel this exercise would be better suited by putting them in bracket quadrants based on the eras they played in. If you drop 2007-2014 Lucic into the expansion era and have him take shots on Kansas City Scouts and Cleveland Barons stand-up goalies in fiberglass masks, that motherf***er's probably scoring 60 goals a year. but he also had the benefit of advanced training methods and nutrition, not to mention equipment. So in the end all you can fall back on is the personal connection and the stories you have. Legit, before this started, I had never even heard of Flash Hollet, but apparently he's a 4 seed based on point shares. Yet no one knows anything about him so Craig Janney is destroying him because we have a much stronger emotional connection to him and the teams he played on.

I voted for Janney because he was one of my favorite players for a few years as a kid. He definitely wasn't a better player than Hollett. I'm kind of surprised that a lot of fans haven't heard of Hollett(if that's the case) seeing as tho he was a big part of the '39 and '41 cup teams. I've also read every book ever written about the Bruins though.

There's only one way to compare players from different era's and that's by looking at what they accomplished in their era. Everything else is just a bunch of what ifs. These polls aren't about comparing players tho, just a popularity contest.

 

[LSCII]

Calling people bandwagon fans for voting for Lucic ciuld definitely been seen as insulting. There's only been 23 people vote for him and I'd imagine most were Bruins fans before 2011. I know for a fact that several of them were.

I've read about Milt since I was a child so I know plenty about him. He was at times both the best offensive and defensive player in the league. He was also gritty, tough and a hell of a leader. A better version of Bergeron basically.

Besides that, please explain how you not voting for Milt because you never saw him play is any different than people not voting for Park because they never saw him play. You say people don't respect the Bruins history or however you worded it but you're doing the same towards Milt. It could also be said that Lucic was the prototypical Bruin. Personally, I love all four of the guys being discussed.

Again, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just more of an observation that the crowd here tends to skew younger because of the team's recent run, and that the older players aren't getting the love in this tournament because of it.

I didn't vote for Milt because his run here was about time versus overall performance. He was a player. He coached. He was the GM. So I look at his track record and appreciate the longevity, but it doesn't hold up to O'Reilly for me, because Taz was the literal embodiment of what it means to be a Bruin. Milt was here for a long time. It's similar to the baseball hall of fame votes where compilers get in just because they ended up playing for a really long time, even though they were good but not great players.

 

[Rubber Biscuit]

Again, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just more of an observation that the crowd here tends to skew younger because of the team's recent run, and that the older players aren't getting the love in this tournament because of it.

I didn't vote for Milt because his run here was about time versus overall performance. He was a player. He coached. He was the GM. So I look at his track record and appreciate the longevity, but it doesn't hold up to O'Reilly for me, because Taz was the literal embodiment of what it means to be a Bruin. Milt was here for a long time. It's similar to the baseball hall of fame votes where compilers get in just because they ended up playing for a really long time, even though they were good but not great players.

I think you're underselling Milt a bit. It's definitely fair to say people's perception of him is influenced by his being around for a long time after his career. But imo he was certainly a great player.

Hart Trophy winner in 50-51 (and 4 other Top-5 finishes), led the league in scoring in 1939-40, 3x first team all-star selection, 1x second team all star selection.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Again, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just more of an observation that the crowd here tends to skew younger because of the team's recent run, and that the older players aren't getting the love in this tournament because of it.

I didn't vote for Milt because his run here was about time versus overall performance. He was a player. He coached. He was the GM. So I look at his track record and appreciate the longevity, but it doesn't hold up to O'Reilly for me, because Taz was the literal embodiment of what it means to be a Bruin. Milt was here for a long time. It's similar to the baseball hall of fame votes where compilers get in just because they ended up playing for a really long time, even though they were good but not great players.

Well, I voted for Taz for those reasons too so I'm not going to argue against him. However, I've also read a lot hockey historians best players of alltime lists and a lot have Milt in the top 50. I've seen him ranked as high as top 10. That has nothing to do with his post playing career. I think you're really selling him short.

 

[bbfan419]

This is absolutely correct. In the grand scheme of things, Park was by far the better player. Hard to see guys like Park and Taz loose out to lesser players because of so many bandwagon fans that came on board after the cup win in 11, and they have zero frame of reference for this team's history.

Agreed, Park was the second best defenseman of the 70's behind only Orr.